John R. Houk
© May 14, 2016
Remarkably the New York Times (a Left-oriented News Paper) has exposed one of President Barack Hussein Obama facilitators between the Administration and the press. Ben Rhodes was tasked to selling the Iran Nuke deal and manipulated the press info on Iranian Navy boarding an American Navy vessel and humiliating U.S. sailors. Rhodes relationship to Obama is evidently chief liar to the American voter. David Samuels wrote a masterful profile on Rhodes showing that political manipulation and misdirection that painted a picture of dealings with Iran that simply and deceptively did not exist.
In essence the Obama-Rhodes team is a propaganda machine that sells a bill of goods based on deception. Since parallels in history tend to repeat over the years you should ask yourself, “What political duo in history reminds of present day Obama-Rhodes?”
I’ll tell you what time in history struck me. The Obama-Rhodes propaganda team reminds of the Hitler-Goebbels team that convinced Germans that the Nazi Party goals and ideals would transform Germany into a master of nations.
The difference between Obama-Rhodes/Hitler-Goebbels are the tactics of global domination. Hitler viewed military power to impose Nazism in ruthless world domination coloring every nefarious action as a glorious moment for the Aryan race. Obama is a Leftist globalist utilizing Gramsci’s Marxist principles of stealth to transform nations from within by delegitimizing the indigenous culture slowly. If slow delegitimizing of culture is successful in a democratic-style government, the people have the illusion they voted in a more favorable Marxist cultural paradigm rather than the individual rights of innovation and property goals as a pursuit of happiness. Thus the pursuit of happiness is taken from the people and turned over to the government to make all the decisions for how a person lives materially and ethically.
Briefly look at Joseph Goebbels’ art of manipulation and you will see how Obama used Ben Rhodes.
Goebbels’ most famous quote (ironically some historians believe is wrongly attributed) that is still the paradigm of Leftist manipulation in the 21st century:
A Goebbels quote that is probably closer to what he actually said:
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” (Ibid.)
And a Goebbels quote I was less familiar with but discovered in my research that is most applicable to Obama-Rhodes:
“Propaganda works best when those who are being manipulated are confident they are acting on their own free will.” (Ibid.)
The last Goebbels quote is exactly the manipulation used on the press, Congress and American voters!
Fred Fleitz made this observation pertaining Obama-Rhodes and foreign policy in the National Review:
“Although Samuels’s article confirms what many Iran experts have said about the Obama administration’s nuclear deal with Iran, his profile of Rhodes is important because it explains the unprecedented incompetence, deceitfulness, and extreme partisanship of Obama’s National Security Council (NSC), and it further reveals that the president has allowed his NSC staff to run his foreign policy.” (Junior Obama NSC Staffers Lied About the Iran Deal and Are Running U.S. Foreign Policy; By Fred Fleitz; National Review; 5/9/16 4:00 AM)
It would do you well to read that entire Fleitz article.
Something to think about is that a Hillary Clinton presidency would simply be a continuation of the Obama Administration deception to the American public as well as the furthering of Obama’s Gramsciesq transformation of America and a New World Order.
YOU NEED to understand what a Gramsci transformation agenda looks like:
Specifically, Gramsci called for Marxists to spread their ideology in a gradual, incremental, stealth manner, by infiltrating all existing societal institutions and embedding it, largely without being noticed, in the popular mind. This, he emphasized, was to be an evolutionary, rather than a revolutionary, process that, over a period of decades, would cause an ever-increasing number of people to embrace Marxist thought, until at last it achieved hegemony. Gramsci described this approach as a “long march through the institutions.” Among the key institutions that would need to be infiltrated were the cinema and theater, the schools and universities, the seminaries and churches, the media, the courts, the labor unions, and at least one major political party. According to Gramsci, these institutions constituted society’s “superstructure,” which, if captured and reshaped by Marxists, could lead the masses to abandon capitalism of their own volition, entirely without resistance or objection. (From Determine The Networks but cross posted at SlantRight 2.0 – Gramsci the Eurocommunist and Obamunism; posted by John R. Houk; 4/2/13)
Antonio Gramsci photo 79th Anniversary of Death
You clueless American voters that support Obama and Hillary YOU are supporting the Gramsci Marxist Transformation. Ergo you millennial voters that think Hillary or Sanders will make your life better are deceiving yourselves into Marxist slavery.
Here is a good look at what Marxist slavery looks like from the excerpted thoughts of Chuck Braman:
Karl Marx claimed that economics determines history, and that one’s economic class determines one’s ideas. Ironically, he proved himself wrong, in a deadly way. The twelve-thousand word propaganda tract written by Marx in 1848 and known as The Communist Manifesto was a concise summary of many ideas which Marx himself created. These ideas proceeded to shape the history of the twentieth century, including its political and economic history, as well as the ideas of most twentieth century intellectuals. This history included approximately one hundred million innocent citizens slaughtered by Marxist governments, millions more enslaved by Marxist governments, international conflicts on an unprecedented scale, and an intellectual tradition that, at present, is thoroughly entrenched in the humanities and is in the process of destroying the ideas and ideals of the West. …
The underlying epistemological error that Marx commits early in the Manifesto is the advocacy of a form of intellectual determinism and relativism which denies both free will and objectivity by claiming that the truth and falsehood of one’s ideas bear no objective status and are determined by, and their truth relative to, one’s economic class. He says, “Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of the conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property… don’t wrangle with us so long as you apply… the standard of your bourgeois notions of freedom, culture, law, etc.” And: “Law, morality and religion are… bourgeois prejudices, behind which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeois interests.”
What Marx is claiming here is that the entire Western philosophic and intellectual tradition, as it had developed up until his time (and on which, ironically, he was entirely dependent for his own ideas), is a subjective rationalization used to justify the “exploitation” of the workers by the capitalists, a tradition consisting of ideas which are neither consciously chosen by the capitalists, nor have any basis in fact. Thus, in a single swoop, Marx himself rationalizes the destruction not only of entire fields, such as law, but of Western culture as such, including its most fundamental concepts. (Contemporary manifestations of these Marxian premises taught in modern universities include the doctrines of “Deconstruction,” “Neo-Pragmatism,” and “Multiculturalism.”)
… Having dismissed freedom, culture, morality and law as subjective myths, Marx then feels free to advocate their outright destruction by the totalitarian State, which he refers to as the “Communistic modes of… appropriating intellectual products,” resulting in the elimination of “class culture.”
… The random killing of groups of people, linked by class status or profession (such as homeowners and high school teachers) immediately followed. The “bourgeois notion” of freedom was eliminated by throwing those who were not murdered outright into concentration and labor camps. Consistent with Marxian subjectivism, objections to slave labor were brushed aside by Lenin’s associate Karl Radek as “the bourgeois prejudice of ‘freedom of labor'”.
Hitler, of course, would soon apply the same methods on a larger scale in his National Socialism, adapting the Soviet model to his own ideology by substituting the concept of race for class. Thus, in Marx’s epistemological ideas, began the intellectual subjectivism, the moral relativism, and mass murder of the totalitarian governments in our century.
The “Communistic modes of… appropriating intellectual products” in order to eliminate “class culture” were made a reality both in the Soviet Union and Red China, whose leaders, Stalin and Mao, systematically smashed Western culture in “Cultural Revolutions” in 1946 and 1966-67 respectively. During these intellectual purges, Western-influenced “bourgeois” scientists and artists were killed or imprisoned, while their works were destroyed.
The point is the elites of the Democratic Party have already transformed that political party that is democratic-socialist at best and at worst a Gramsci-style Marxist destroyer of the founding principles of America’s Founding Fathers. And that which is even more heinous the Marxist elites of the current Dem Party are using the same instruments of governing from the Founding Fathers to undermine America’s founding principles and destroy what has made America an exceptional nation among nations. A HILLARY VOTE OR NON-TRUMP VOTE IS A VOTE TO END AMERICA as it was meant to be as a Republic of the people, by the people and for the people.
The inspiration of my thoughts a FrontPage Mag article by Daniel Greenfield.
ANTI-AMERICANISM IS THE FOREIGN POLICY OF FOOLS
But Anti-Americanism is the only foreign policy that the American Left needs.
May 13, 2016
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.
The New York Times profile of Ben Rhodes, Obama’s foreign policy guru, had plenty of shocking moments from his attempt to cover up Iran’s abduction of US sailors to his blatant gloating over the stupidity of the journalists whom he manipulated into spreading his lies in support of the Iran deal.
But the larger revelation is also simpler. Ben Rhodes knows next to nothing about foreign policy. He has no idea whether Iran will get nukes and couldn’t care less whether it’s moderate or not. He’s a failed fiction writer whose goal is “radically reorienting American policy in the Middle East in order to make the prospect of American involvement in the region’s future wars a lot less likely”.
That’s another way of describing a foreign policy built on isolationism.
Obama’s interviews are liberally spiced with contempt for the Europeans, whose foreign policy he adopted, and even former Islamist allies like Turkey are being treated with disdain. He despises both traditional US allies such as the UK and Israel, but he also has little use for the enemies, such as Russia and the Sunni Islamists, whom he tried to court. About the only enemy nation he still likes is Iran.
The first wave of Democratic backlash to the Iraq War was to champion diplomacy over military intervention. But diplomacy without intervention proved toothless. All that’s left now is a warped isolationism in which the US still pays the bills, signs all sorts of meaningless international accords that compromise our interests, but completely abandons its leadership role as a world power.
Rhodes sneers at the reporters whom he manipulated as knowing nothing. And he’s right. But he also doesn’t know anything. The condition is typical of an American left which has no foreign policy. It only has an anti-American domestic policy which it projects internationally without regard to its relevance.
The Iran deal had to happen to defeat “neo-conservatives”, the “war lobby” and whatever other leftist boogeyman was lurking around the premises. The men and women doing the defeating, like Rhodes, had zero interest in what was actually happening in Iran or what its leaders might do with nuclear weapons. They would tell any lie to help sell the deal because they were fighting a domestic battle of narratives. Iran wasn’t a real place. It was a fictional counter in a domestic ideological battle.
This problem did not begin yesterday.
Senator Ted Kennedy’s infamous letter to the Soviet leadership was seen as treasonous. But as a practical matter it revealed that an aspiring president had no interest in the USSR except to use it in a domestic battle against Reagan. Democrats had similarly supported and then turned against the Iraq War over domestic politics. Not only had they backed the removal of Saddam Hussein in the past, but Obama’s regime change in Libya showed that they did not believe any of their own critiques of regime change or unilateral intervention. Their foreign policy was based entirely on a domestic agenda.
Earlier generations of Democrats did have a comprehensive foreign policy based on ideas. It might be wrong, but it did exist. The Clinton-Kerry generation was very interested in talking about foreign policy, but viewed it purely in terms of opposing the Vietnam War as a critique of American power.
They had no other ideas to offer and it showed.
Without the Cold War, the Clinton era reduced foreign policy to multilateral diplomacy that existed to resolve conflicts and prevent genocide. But diplomacy proved useless in Rwanda and Bosnia. So Clinton ignored the former and used ruthless force casually for the latter. Meanwhile his foreign policy couldn’t process the rise of Al Qaeda and the growing threat of Islamic terrorism which led inevitably to 9/11.
Hillary Clinton is offering up a freezer fresh version of the same thing. The policies that failed her badly in Syria, Libya and across the Middle East are the only foreign policy offerings that she has for sale.
Bill Clinton had no foreign policy. Like Obama, he viewed foreign policy in terms of his domestic conflicts with Republicans. He tried to engage diplomatically while retreating militarily. His botched intervention in Yugoslavia had strong similarities to Obama’s disastrous intervention in Libya.
And a Clinton was behind both.
Hillary Clinton took the Secretary of State position to build up credibility for a presidential run. The invasion of Libya was a platform to take her to the White House. Libya did not matter to her. While the State Department blew through fortunes to finance her self-promotion, the Benghazi mission lacked basic security. Even the Jihadists who were hired on to provide security weren’t getting paid.
And that led to the murder of four Americans.
It’s a short distance from Ted Kennedy trying to figure out how he could use Soviet officials to undermine Reagan and become president to Hillary Clinton seeing regime change in Libya as a campaign commercial right down to the punchy media-friendly slogan, “We came, We saw, He died.”
Democratic foreign policy is animated by political careerism and the conviction that American power is the problem. Beyond that lies a deep and abiding ignorance of the actual conflicts and issues abroad.
The left’s reflexive anti-Americanism makes it easy to be ignorant while appearing knowledgeable. It allows the conflation of domestic policy critiques with foreign policy by blaming America for everything. Anything that doesn’t fit into the neat anti-American box can be waved away with some clichés about the importance of global communication, global poverty, trade policies, global warming and reform.
Democrats didn’t have to understand Iraq. They just had to know it was Bush’s fault. First it was Bush I’s fault for not removing Saddam Hussein, as Democrats and the media instead he should have. Then it was Bush II’s fault for removing Saddam, which Democrats and the media had now decided he shouldn’t have. But blaming Bush I and II didn’t actually teach them anything about Iraq. And so they had no idea what to do about it.
Bill Clinton ricocheted from bombing Iraq to trying to trying to ignore it. Obama followed the same course, first trying to ignore it and then bombing it. Neither of them understood anything about Iraq. While Obama still boasts of having gotten Iraq right, that’s because no one reminds him that back in the Senate he was insisting that Iraqis would achieve a political solution once American soldiers had left.
The political solution they achieved was a bloody civil war culminating in ISIS.
But Obama’s understanding of Iraq was limited to blaming America for its problems. He didn’t know anything else and he didn’t feel that he had to.
The rise of ISIS happened because Democrats didn’t feel they had to know anything about Iraq except that it was Bush’s fault. When Bush tried to get Assad to cut off the flow of Al Qaeda terrorists into Iraq, leading Democrats, including Pelosi and Kerry, rushed to support Assad against President Bush.
That flow of terrorists from Syria into Iraq eventually became the basis for ISIS.
It’s no wonder that Obama has never been able to come up with a working plan for Syria. Blaming Bush is not a plan. And it’s a particularly bad plan in this case.
Anti-Americanism, like most prejudices, is a license for ignorance. By embracing a prejudice against their own country, Democrats have lost any skill at foreign policy that they once had. Instead of learning anything about the world, they resort to the easy answer of turning away from the confusing problems of other countries to blame them all on us. Anti-Americanism is the only foreign policy that they need.
Anti-Americanism is the foreign policy of fools. It’s not smart power. It’s ignorance and prejudice with a dictionary.
Obama-Rhodes: America’s Eminent Future?
John R. Houk
© May 14, 2016
ANTI-AMERICANISM IS THE FOREIGN POLICY OF FOOLS
© COPYRIGHT 2016, FRONTPAGEMAG.COM
FRONTPAGE MAG IS A PROUD PROJECT OF THE DAVID HOROWITZ FREEDOM CENTER
The DHFC is dedicated to the defense of free societies whose moral, cultural and economic foundations are under attack by enemies both secular and religious, at home and abroad.
The David Horowitz Freedom Center combats the efforts of the radical left and its Islamist allies to destroy American values and disarm this country as it attempts to defend itself in a time of terror. The leftist offensive is most obvious on our nation’s campuses, where the Freedom Center protects students from indoctrination and intimidation and works to give conservative students a place in the marketplace of ideas from which they are otherwise excluded. Combining forceful analysis and bold activism, the Freedom Center provides strong insight into today’s most pressing issue on its family of websites and in the activist campaigns it wages on campus, in the news media, and in national politics throughout the year.
David Horowitz began the Center for the Study of Popular Culture in 1988 to establish a conservative presence in Hollywood and show how popular culture had become a political battleground. Over the next 18 years, CSPC attracted 50,000 contributing supporters and established programs such as The Wednesday Morning Club, the Individual Rights Foundation, and Students for Academic Freedom.
FrontPage Magazine, the Center’s online journal of news and political commentary has 1.5 million visitors and over 870,000 unique visitors a month (65 million hits) and is linked to over 2000 other websites. The magazine’s coverage of and commentary about events has been greatly augmented over the last two years by the presence of four Shillman Fellows in Journalism underwritten by board member Dr. Robert Shillman. FrontPage has recently added a blog called “The Point,” run by Shillman Fellow Daniel Greenfield, which has tripled web traffic.
DiscoverTheNetworks.com, launched in 2005, is the largest publicly accessible database defining the chief groups and individuals of the Left and their organizational interlocks. It is a full service encyclopedia of the left providing an intellectual diagram of its institutional power in American culture and politics. DTN has had more than 8 million visitors so … READ THE REST